JK Rowling article

[DrDreReturns]

Interesting read. I know it's from a Conservative site but it seems only the right are gender critical at the moment.

www.conservativehome.com/highlights/2022/03/profile-j-k-rowling-striving-to-stop-starmer-nailing-his-colours-to-the-fence-on-trans.html

How do you explain that infertile cis women suffer from reproduction based oppression but trans women don't just as much?

Quite a few of these transwomen are fertile men who have fathered children. Show me a single infertile woman who has done the same

A man with cock and balls (even if removed) is not a woman without a uterus even though he doesn't have a uterus either.

So post menopausal we are now men? Will I get prostate cancer? Will I be paid more now?

Elaine Fuchs:

... I think we have to take trans people at their word here, I believe who they say they are ...

This looks like a particular crux. (I take it you mean, 'believe that they are who they say they are'.)

Why could a trans person not be mistaken about who they say they are?

Of course, If I say I do not feel so-and-so, and I am sincere, it must be true that I do not feel so. Likewise if I say I am attracted to certain people, I must be so attracted. I know how I feel, we might say.

However, suppose I tell you I sincerely feel that I am a reincarnation of Elvis. Whilst it must be true that I do so feel, it would not be sensible to conclude, the further point, that I am indeed Elvis reincarnated. I could be mistaken about that even though I cannot be mistaken about how I feel.

In the light of this, it does seem we might question someone's sincere belief that he has changed sex. Whilst a transwoman may sincerely feel he is a woman, he could still be mistaken, not about how he feels, but about whether he is, in fact, a woman.

It seems to me, Elaine Fuchs , you just make a mistake in thinking a trans person must be who they say they are. It seems we have every reason to doubt a trans person's claim to be who they say they are, just as we do in the case of Elvis' reincarnation.

Do you see? Am I missing something here?

For many intents and purposes, two men who are putting on or who have put on a horse costume are in many ways a biological horse (although not all).

I find all this talk about the misogyny, sexism and reproduction oppression that transwomen and cis women suffer excludes me as i am not cis or trans

I’m not finding it inclusive at all….women like me are being sidelined and ignored by posters like elaine

@nepeta

Thanks for your response.

This article puts it to words better than I was able to lysistrata327.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-gender-debate-8d2?s=r

Some specific points

"My beef is with the fact that all names for the female biological sex are being erased"

I don't think this is really such a departure from where we are today, the group of people you consider "biological women" already includes people with no breasts, infertile people, people with every mix of chromosomes.

"And I am extremely worried about the erasure of terms we can use to explain why girls over twelve still cannot go to school in Afghanistan."

It's still possible to say "girls in Afghanistan suffer hugely from an authoratian patriarchal regime."

"If the two biological sexes indeed were truly equally treated, then it wouldn't matter what identity people pick for themselves."

Looking forward to the day!

"and, in theory, man, though in practice very few are re-defining men"

The conversation (especially on this forum) focuses on trans women because they are easier to demonise, in the same "protect weak women and children" way as minorities have been treated through history. I suspect that trans women are better for triggering people's disgust reaction, "I can understand a trans man wanting to gain in privilege, but why would a trans woman want to give up her male privilege".

"current impossibility of even discussing them online."

Agree here, the quality of discourse (especially here) is dire. If you want to DM me, I'm also happy to discuss things less publicly.

"One of the major questions I have is how a replacement categorisation based on femininity..."

Like it or not, we do live in a society with gender, and trans people do do better when they interact with society as their correct gender. There is also the case of identity, I think cis people just don't notice it, but trans people do feel a disconnect between their gender identity and body/interactions with society.

It's a deep and interesting question. I would suggest that this forum is probably one of the worst places to examine it though.

"The exception was female reproductive rights,"

How did infertile cis women fit into your framework?

"basic idea of feminism as centrally focused on combating sex-based discrimination"

There is no reason why trans-inclusive feminism can't keep fighting for all of these causes. Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman. People who discriminate don't know my chromosomes, or genitals, or what's written on my birth certificate. Having said that, there definitely does exist systemic oppression which harms lots of women because of their biology. For just one example, take menstruation, it's a burden which doesn't affect most men. But some women don't menstruate, nonetheless, they are still women, even though they don't suffer directly from this form of oppression. I would still consider, for example, increasing accessibility for period products as falling under the "feminism" umbrella.

Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman. People who discriminate don't know my chromosomes, or genitals, or what's written on my birth certificate.

What a load of rubbish! Next you'll be saying that only a biologist can tell you're a woman.

" express myself as a woman" ? Give us a break.!!!

@334bu

*Furthermore, I don't think any discrimination or misogyny has been because of my biology more than it has been because I am and express myself as a woman. People who discriminate don't know my chromosomes, or genitals, or what's written on my birth certificate. *

What a load of rubbish! Next you'll be saying that only a biologist can tell you're a woman.

" express myself as a woman" ? Give us a break.!!!

Just to clarify, I meant biology in the very specific way it's being used in this thread. And I'm not saying that I'm not recognized as a woman because of the shape of my body. In retrospect I could have been clearer by just dating birth certificate, or my "biology at birth".

I of course suffer from the systemic factors I mentioned also.

Not sure why you take exception to the fact that as a woman I express that?

Posters, lurkers, friends.

I would exercise extreme caution when invited to dm someone.

Remember this board is heavily monitored, and there are people out there who are keen to dox & harass women. Consider very carefully before sharing any details at all that may be identifying. Some of our visitors are sadly not in good faith.

Agree here, the quality of discourse (especially here) is dire.

I'm laughing at this gem from the poster who has posted the most ridiculous nonsense I have ever read.

@DomesticatedZombie

Posters, lurkers, friends.

I would exercise extreme caution when invited to dm someone.

Remember this board is heavily monitored, and there are people out there who are keen to dox & harass women. Consider very carefully before sharing any details at all that may be identifying. Some of our visitors are sadly not in good faith.

Just highlighting this again. A certain poster seems very determined to have people from this Board DM them, even after having been told repeatedly that that is very much not in the spirit, why so persistent I wonder .

Be careful out there posters, lurkers, friends.

"And I am extremely worried about the erasure of terms we can use to explain why girls over twelve still cannot go to school in Afghanistan."

It's still possible to say "girls in Afghanistan suffer hugely from an authoratian patriarchal regime."

This is interesting. We can say girls in Afghanistan are oppressed (how gracious!) But apparently we aren't allowed to talk about the specifics of how they are oppressed. We just have to gesticulate vaguely in the direction of generalised oppression because otherwise we'd be excluding girls with penises in Afghanistan from the conversation.

I have never seen anyone so decisively prove the point they are trying to argue against.

And that poster can fuck off with their attempts to silence women.

Like it or not, we do live in a society with gender, and trans people do do better when they interact with society as their correct gender.

Can you say more about what you mean by 'trans people do do better when they interact with society as their correct gender'? What sort of interactions are you thinking of here? Can you give some examples?

Elaine Fuchs, we are talking at cross-purposes and have very different goals. You wish the total category, even globally, of 'women' to refer to nothing but pure inner identities, even if very few people actually possess such abstract identities not based on the sex of their bodies, and even if the approach results in us returning to strict gender roles and sexist stereotypes (because that is all we can use to define 'women' and 'men' if biological bodies are not allowed as the basis for definitions.)

I wish to fight against sex-based oppression, and to retain our gender identities which are based on lived experience with a female body in a world which treats those having that body differently from those who have the biologically male body. The two paths do not intersect.

Your approach will not allow feminism to improve the lot of biologically female people. I would love to be more inclusive, but as the gender ideology has not offered a separate set of names for gender identities but simply appropriated the biological labels, this is clearly not feasible.

Thank you for the debate.

If you want to DM me, I'm also happy to discuss things less publicly.

This is from a poster who has name called others on this thread. Now asking for people to 'DM' them. This is a very dangerous thing to do. Reader's please beware.

Not only that. But the invitation to discuss things less publicly, is because they are not able to coherently articulate any compelling posts on this thread.

And has totally ignored posters calling out their lack of ethics regarding human foetuses and animals.

@Absurdle

"And I am extremely worried about the erasure of terms we can use to explain why girls over twelve still cannot go to school in Afghanistan."

It's still possible to say "girls in Afghanistan suffer hugely from an authoratian patriarchal regime."

This is interesting. We can say girls in Afghanistan are oppressed (how gracious!) But apparently we aren't allowed to talk about the specifics of how they are oppressed. We just have to gesticulate vaguely in the direction of generalised oppression because otherwise we'd be excluding girls with penises in Afghanistan from the conversation.

I have never seen anyone so decisively prove the point they are trying to argue against.

And that poster can fuck off with their attempts to silence women.

This new way of defining women will make feminism almost impossible. Future feminists will have to gesture when the relevant words no longer exist, assuming that there will be future feminism.

But it also makes a total hash of many other things, such as health and sexuality education.

One 'inclusive' article on contraception was clearly written for female people (it mentions oral contraceptives almost right away), but because biological sex cannot be mentioned, a reader with a penis might have been led to believe that there are easily available oral male contraceptives.

It also gave the risks of pregnancy when a condom breaks without specifying if the sex with the condom was between two biologically female people, two biologically male people, or two people of different biological sexes, so the risks given were incorrectly specified. They could have been assumed to apply to two gay men having protected sex, say, and the only reason that misreading could not happen is that we still know the underlying facts.

Elaine Fuchs , I asked you upthread if you had any reason for thinking you had to take trans people at their word concerning how they describe themselves.

Do you have any reason(s) for this?

-- I note you have since returned to the thread. I wonder how you feel a lack of reasons for assertions such as yours here impacts on the 'quality of discourse' you have been at pains to denigrate?

@SamphiretheStickerist

For many intents and purposes, trans women who are undergoing/have undergone a medical transition are in many ways biological women (although not all).

When you get a spare moment @ElaineFuchs, could you tell me what any one of those "many ways" is?

Just one!

Thank you.

And I am still awaiting a response to this question.

If we could have just one example then we would know what you are talking about @ElaineFuchs

Until then you are just laying down more and more gibberish.

I suspect that trans women are better for triggering people's disgust reaction, "I can understand a trans man wanting to gain in privilege, but why would a trans woman want to give up her male privilege".

This is what happens when you base your argument on unsound foundations. Women are not disgusted at transwomen. They are concerned about safeguards for women and children. They are concerned about the erosion of their safety and rights.
Males identifying as women destroy those safeguards. And transwomen don't give up their male privilege by identifying as women. Far from it. They increase their male privilege. At the expense of women and children.

For many intents and purposes, trans women who are undergoing/have undergone a medical transition are in many ways biological women (although not all). So the phrase biological woman carries some ambiguity (I think it's transphobic too, as it suggests there is a correct biology to be a woman, imagine if I suggested that only fertile women were biological women for example)

What 'intents and purposes'? There is a 'correct biology' to be a woman, and it doesn't require being fertile, in the same sense that there is 'correct biology' to be a human being, which is not negated by, for example, being born with one arm, or 6 toes on each foot, or losing a limb in an accident, or indeed having a cat's tail and ears surgically attached to you - even though humans generally have two legs, two arms, 10 toes and no furry tail or pointy ears. Adding things or removing things to a person's body does not change their species or their sex.

Adding things or removing things to a person's body does not change their species or their sex.

Quite. I wonder whether, as a logical exercise, we could start with whether Elaine agrees that dogs and rabbits are different things, and if so how she tells the difference.

Also for the patient, painstaking, intelligent posters taking the time to dissect this nonsense on stilts. Noticed Helleofabore particularly but she's by no means the only one.

"I find it very concerning that the gender critical movement is so closely aligned with people wishing to roll back abortion rights, promote misogynistic viewpoints and homophobia.

I don't think that every GC believes in this things of course, but there is a worrying overlap."
Like vegetarians and Hitler. He was a vegetarian therefore all vegetarians are Nazis.

What bollocks.

"My beef is with the fact that all names for the female biological sex are being erased"

Fuchs says I don't think this is really such a departure from where we are today, the group of people you consider "biological women" already includes people with no breasts, infertile people, people with every mix of chromosomes

Again with the very dehumanising and offensive twisting.

Women who have lost their breasts due to having medically necessary mastectomies are no less women and they are not comparators for transitioned males.

Nor are women with any medical condition or decision that means that they are not fertile.

It is also offensive to keep bringing chromosomes into the discussion as a way to force open the definition of women and female and single sex needs.

But this has been already addressed in this thread. The females and their medical conditions you mention are simply not now, and not ever, comparators for males.

It is truly offensive to keep mentioning them for any reason that allows males to be described as women or females.

That you keep doing so, obviously doesn’t register with you as a huge weakness in your argument but it does to the readers. Every. Time.

"and, in theory, man, though in practice very few are re-defining men"

Fuchs The conversation (especially on this forum) focuses on trans women because they are easier to demonise, in the same "protect weak women and children" way as minorities have been treated through history. I suspect that trans women are better for triggering people's disgust reaction, "I can understand a trans man wanting to gain in privilege, but why would a trans woman want to give up her male privilege".

The conversation (especially on this forum) focuses on trans women because they are easier to demonise,

Errr… no. The focus on transitioned males is because they are being forced into the feminist discussion by people who wish to centre males. I am sure that most posters on this board would be grateful to never have to discuss the male incursion into feminist focus ever again. But there we are. One group continues to centre males in women’s issues.

These males are not ‘demonised’. There is plenty of discussion as to whether these males ever should be included in female categories, roles, shortlists, sports, or spaces.

There is a very clear TRA narrative that these males are ‘demonised’… what? Like calling women pointing out the deficits in your arguments as ‘bigots’, ‘haters’, ‘right wing’, and ‘conspiracy theorists’? And for pointing out the ethical wasteland that supports some of your arguments?

Like that type of demonisation?

"current impossibility of even discussing them online."

Fuchs says Agree here, the quality of discourse (especially here) is dire. If you want to DM me, I'm also happy to discuss things less publicly.

Perhaps your assessment of discourse on this thread is based on the lack of credibility any of your arguments have.

From the denial of negative sexist discrimination being based on the female body, to the actual description of that female body (which you unconvincingly tried to leverage people’s medical conditions to force open definitions and failed), to the ignoring of the ethical issues involve with using human embryos for experiments that allow males to be pregnant.

What feminist allows foetuses and embryos to be used this way?

I mean really? And that is not even discussing the animals that are being abused to create this opportunity?

No. There is no lack of quality of discourse here except your own. And to encourage people to take those discussions out of the public eye is a ploy used regularly by trans activists on MN. Because they cannot seem to make coherent arguments in public at all.